Explaining Software Bugs Leveraging Code Structures in Neural Machine Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software bugs claim ≈ 50 % of development time and cost the global economy billions of dollars. Once a bug is reported, the assigned developer attempts to identify and understand the source code responsible for the bug and then corrects the code. Over the last five decades, there has been significant research on automatically finding or correcting software bugs. However, there has been little research on automatically explaining the bugs to the developers, which is essential but a highly challenging task. In this paper, we propose Bugsplainer, a transformer-based generative model, that generates natural language explanations for software bugs by learning from a large corpus of bug-fix commits. Bugsplainer can leverage structural information and buggy patterns from the source code to generate an explanation for a bug. Our evaluation using three performance metrics shows that Bugsplainer can generate understandable and good explanations according to Google's standard, and can outperform multiple baselines from the literature. We also conduct a developer study involving 20 participants where the explanations from Bugsplainer were found to be more accurate, more precise, more concise and more useful than the baselines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".